Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Key biodiversity area of in Albertine Rift valley
Evidence B:A map showing exact area is not provided, however it appears the area falls within the Virunga National Park/Rutshuru Catchment Priority 1 – KBA. The proposed areas are within the Albertine Rift and indicate high species range and rarity.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: High irrecoverable carbon and water sources
Evidence B:Irrecoverable carbon is low throughout the country with some higher concentrations near the area of interest. Data included indicates in 2010, 95% of households depended on wood or charcoal for fuel contributing to an 80KHa annual loss of green cover.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Population growth and overgrazing.
Evidence B:EoI does not include specific about IPLC rights and governance of lands and resources. Information clearly outlines challenges and barriers and a general of alienation from and lack of participation of IPLC in conservation processes in the proposed areas.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: People are dependent on Natural resources for livelihoods….
Evidence B:References are primarily to importance of indigenous knowledge and the lack of inclusion of this knowledge.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: habitat change due to deforestation being caused by slash and burning. High fragmentation rate.
Evidence B:Threats are described in a lengthy narrative. Specific and quantified explanations would be helpful to evaluating the EoI.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: There is good policy framework but lack of resource to implement.
Evidence B:While data provided indicates 67% of the county’s land area is identified as IPLC owned, government retains forest control. EoI refers generally to traditional governance practice, but does not provide detail on how that translates into land and resource management.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: There is but lack of funding is the key stumbling block.
Evidence B:Response to Q.5 in the EoI is in contrast to or in conflict with the response to Q. 2 on IPLC governance. It appears that the government defined approach to conservation and land management does not translate to inclusion of IPLCs or participation in governance. Further clarification or background research is needed to understand conditions at present time.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Good framework and strategies have been developed by NGO coalition.
Evidence B:EoI references the Albertine Rift Conservation Framework and other Initiatives funded and carried out by INGOs. The applicant organization has a 17 year history of implementing projects. No information provided o other IPLC led conservation Initiatives.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There are various NGOs working in the rift valley across different countries.
Evidence B:Two projects related to climate changed referenced in the EoI.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: There is too much focus on theoretical staff. Only one activity really empowers IPLCs
Evidence B:The approach is partially aligned. EOI indicates medium emphasis on IPLC rights and governance of natural resources. Activities do not include a focus on strengthening rights. Stronger focus is forest restoration and on actions to coordinate and improve collaborations with government. These certainly contribute to ICI objective, but the whole approach seems very high level, top down and unrealistically ambitious.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: There is too much emphasis on desk top work.
Evidence B:Activities defined are generally high level and broad in scope and technical requirements with some very specific activities intermixed. Generally, the scope of activities seems to move beyond the historic activities of the applicant organization.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: More time is put on meetings and desktop work and strategies. Only one practical activity which forest rehabilitation.
Evidence B:Activities are focused on threats but are overly ambitious and do not provide a clear framework of action to achieve change.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Has left a lot to be desired to empower IPLCs. Nothing even on IPLCs capacity duilding.
Evidence B:EoI lacks a clear vision on scope and scale of what can be achieved within time frame and financial investment of ICI. Activities are very ambitious with no clarity on how they will be implemented and outcome achieved.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: There are few or weak opportunities for co-financing.
Evidence B:While significant co-financing would be necessary, only specifics are related to in-kind contributions from communities.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Not realistic.
Evidence B:Moderate. GEF Indicator table shows 393Kha under improved management and 80Kha of that total under improved practice with 908K direct beneficiaries.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: They activities are limited and not directly aligned with IPLC in the area.
Evidence B:Cultural and livelihood indicators are included, but they are no consisted with the project goals and described outcomes.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: To a limited extent. in as far as tree planting is concerned but no strong alignment with IPLC governance.
Evidence B:Information not included in EoI
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Contributes weakly.
Evidence B:Only vague description of National priorities and relation to outcomes.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: There is some good understanding of gender mainstreaming.
Evidence B:Definite familiarity with and recognition of issues, but approach is not cohesive and clearly linked to activities.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: leaves out a lot to be desired.
Evidence B:The actions themselves would demonstrate potential, but the overly ambitious scale and lack of a comprehensive framework and clear path to change significantly reduces potential for transformative results.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: IPLC seem to be beneficiaries mainly of activity or outcome one. The rest is not directly about them.
Evidence B:EoI identifies LADA as an IPLC organization. Project history and focus(per website) show a strong health and development focus, rather than conservation and the environment. Right Advocacy is also a program focus area. Although there is a strong element of capacity building included, in reviewer’s opinion, IPLC communities in project areas are cast more as beneficiaries than partners in the EoI. Full proposal should define active role of IPLCs in project design more clearly..
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Not really. no reference is made to IPLC governance development.
Evidence B:It is not clear that the applicant organization has a strong enough focus on the ICI objective components. The organizational goal stated on their website is: ‘To empower and support the disadvantaged and at risk members of the Community in Uganda to access support, quality health, education, sanitation and Hygiene, improved incomes and human rights awareness creation and protection’. While LADA’s strategic objectives include work on community management and awareness of environmental resources, the scope of the EoI appears beyond the level of the organizations’ current focus and experience.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: There is a good mention of IPLC partners but no role defined.
Evidence B:Partnerships with multiple government agencies/ministries defined. Local ILC organizations identified and letters of general support included.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The qualifications of the team are really good. there is capacity.
Evidence B:EoI information indicates strong educational backgrounds with appropriate skill sets for management of applicant organizations’ strategic objectives. Experience in conservation projects is stated but without information on scope and scale required to understand whether capacity is sufficient for scope and scale of outcomes and activities proposed in the EoI.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: They seem to have financial management capacity from what they say.
Evidence B:Information provided indicates strong management skills an financial qualifications with moderately diversified funding sources . Experience with 2 USAID projects indicated at 1.4 and .4M US$.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: They say training of GEF has been attended but no experience of GEF implementation.
Evidence B:No specific explanation of familiarity with safeguards beyond references to FPIC and gender information.